Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System
María LuGoneS

The coloniality of power is understood by Anibal Quijano as at the constituting crux of the global capitalist system of power. What is characteristic of global, Eurocentered, capitalist power is that it is organized around two axes that Quijano terms “the coloniality of power” and “modernity.” The coloniality of power introduces the basic and universal social classification of the population of the planet in terms of the idea of race, a replacing of relations of superiority and inferiority established through domination with naturalized understandings of inferiority and superiority. In this essay, Lugones introduces a systemic understanding of gender constituted by colonial/modernity in terms of multiple relations of power. This gender system has a light and a dark side that depict relations, and beings in relation as deeply different and thus as calling for very different patterns of violent abuse. Lugones argues that gender itself is a colonial introduction, a violent introduction consistently and contemporarily used to destroy peoples, cosmologies, and communities as the building ground of the “civilized” West.

In a theoretico-praxical vein, I am offering a framework to begin thinking about heterosexism as a key part of how gender fuses with race in the operations of colonial power. Colonialism did not impose precolonial, european gender arrangements on the colonized. It imposed a new gender system that created very different arrangements for colonized males and females than for white bourgeois colonizers. Thus, it introduced many genders and gender itself as a colonial concept and mode of organization of relations of production, property relations, of cosmologies and ways of knowing. But we cannot understand this gender system without understanding what anibal Quijano calls “the coloniality of power” (2000a, 2000b, 2001–2002). The reason to historicize gender
Hypatia vol. 22, no. 1 (Winter 2007) © by María Lugones

That position is also one that entrenches oppressive colonial gender arrangements. Women of color and Third World feminisms have consistently shown the way to a critique of this indifference to this deep imbrication of race. Two crucial questions that we can ask about heterosexualism from within it are: How do we understand heterosexuality not merely as normative but as consistently perverse when violently exercised across the colonial modern gender system so as to . To understand the relation of the birth of the colonial/modern gender system to the birth of global colonial capitalism—with the centrality of the coloniality of power to that system of global power—is to understand our present organization of life anew. I am cautious when I call it “white” feminist theory and practice. particularly feminist philosophy. hierarchical. dislodge. This attempt at historicizing gender and heterosexualism is thus an attempt to move. and sexuality in a way that enables me to understand the indifference that persists in much feminist analysis. that is. of course. But that is. gender. The heterosexualist patriarchy has been an ahistorical framework of analysis. oppressive organizations of life. on the one hand. Yet. The framework I introduce is wholly grounded in the feminisms of women of color and women of the Third World and arises from within them. So. as I make clear later in this essay. a conclusion from within an understanding of gender that sees it as a colonial concept. it is also politically important that many who have taken the coloniality of power seriously have tended to naturalize gender. The questions attempt to inspire resistance to oppression understood in this degree of complexity. oppressive gender formation that rests on male supremacy without any clear understanding of the mechanisms by which heterosexuality. and sexuality. complicate what has faced me and others engaged in liberatory/decolonial projects as hard barriers that are both conceptual and political. I arrive at this conclusion by walking a political/ praxical/theoretical path that has yet to become central in gender work: the path marked by taking seriously the coloniality of power.María Lugones 187 formation is that without this history. These are barriers to the conceptualization and enactment of liberatory possibilities as de-colonial possibilities. Liberatory possibilities that emphasize the light side of the colonial/modern gender system affirm rather than reject an oppressive organization of life. we keep on centering our analysis on the patriarchy. There has been a persistent absence of a deep imbrication of race into the analysis that takes gender and sexuality as central in much white feminist theory and practice. This framework enables us to ask harsh but hopefully inspiring questions. and racial classification are impossible to understand apart from each other. I am interested in investigating the intersection of race. on a binary. class. gender. class. capitalism. one can suspect a redundancy involved in the claim: it is white because it seems unavoidably enmeshed in a sense of gender and of gendered sexuality that issues from what I call the light side of the modern/colonial gender system.

but significantly by Third World and women of color feminists. theorizing global domination continues to proceed as if no betrayals or collaborations of this sort need to be acknowledged and resisted. gender and sexuality in a way that enables me to understand the indifference that men. on the one hand. I am thus attempting to move the discussion of heterosexualism. men who have been racialized as inferior. since it is their backbone. This work has emphasized the concept of intersectionality and has exposed the historical and the theoretico-practical .188 Hypatia construct a worldwide system of power? How do we come to understand the very meaning of heterosexualism as tied to a persistently violent domination that marks the flesh multiply by accessing the bodies of the unfree in differential patterns devised to constitute them as the tortured materiality of power? In the work I begin here. but. The latter is crucial for communal struggles toward liberation. That is. In particular. and well-being and in the path of the correlative struggles toward communal integrity. I offer the first ingredients to begin to answer these questions. more important to our struggles. This indifference is insidious since it places tremendous barriers in the path of the struggles of women of color for our own freedom. I am referring. Feminists of color have made clear what is revealed in terms of violent domination and exploitation once the epistemological perspective focuses on the intersection of these categories. exhibit to the systematic violences inflicted upon women of color. how politically minded white theorists have simplified gender in terms of the patriarchy. class. I also think that transnational intellectual and practical work that ignores the imbrication of the coloniality of power and the colonial/modern gender system also affirms this global system of power. I do not believe any solidarity or homoerotic loving is possible among females who affirm the colonial/modern gender system and the coloniality of power.1 I want to understand the construction of this indifference so as to make it unavoidably recognizable by those claiming to be involved in liberatory struggles. The indifference seems to me not just one of not seeing the violence because of the categorial2 separation of race. including critical race theorists. class. not exclusively. to the important work on gender. often in disbelief. integrity. The indifference is found both at the level of everyday living and at the level of theorizing of both oppression and liberation. and sexuality. by changing its very terms. race and colonization done. I pursue this investigation by placing together two frameworks of analysis that I have not seen sufficiently jointly explored. But I have seen over and over. gender. Here. it does not seem to be only a question of epistemological blinding through categorial separation. I am also interested in investigating the intersection of race.3 But that has not seemed sufficient to arouse in those men who have themselves been targets of violent domination and exploitation any recognition of their complicity or collaboration with the violent domination of women of color.

of perceiving our allegiance to this gender system. eurocentered.” I think this understanding of gender is implied in both frameworks in large terms.María Lugones 189 exclusion of nonwhite women from liberatory struggles in the name of women.5 Placing both of these strands of analysis together permits me to arrive at what I am tentatively calling “the modern/colonial gender system. can be understood as organized around the axes of coloniality and modernity. their resources and products” (2001–2002. exploitation. The intent of this writing is to make visible the instrumentality of the colonial/modern gender system in subjecting us—both women and men of color—in all domains of existence. of reading. collective authority and subjectivity/intersubjectivity. The Coloniality of Power Quijano thinks the intersection of race and gender in large structural terms. Both race7 and gender find their meanings in this model (patrón). This is too narrow an understanding of the oppressive modern/colonial constructions of the scope of gender. So.4 The other framework is the one Quijano introduced and which is at the center of his work. to understand that intersection in his terms. 342). But it is also the project’s intent to make visible the crucial disruption of bonds of practical solidarity. The axes order the disputes over control of each area of existence in such a way that the coloniality of power and modernity thoroughly infuse the meaning and forms of domination in each area. but one that gives us—in the logic of structural axes—a good ground from within which to understand the processes of intertwining the production of race and gender. eurocentered capitalist power. the disputes/struggles over control of “sexual access. and conflict as social actors fight over control of “the four basic areas of human existence: sex. or not articulated in the direction I think necessary to unveil the reach and consequences of complicity with this gender system. capitalist power is organized characteristically around two axes: the coloniality of power and modernity (2000b. I think that articulating this colonial/modern gender system. It will also enable us to see its fundamental destructiveness in both a long and wide sense. for Quijano.8 Quijano understands that all power is structured in relations of domination. labor. its resources and products” define the domain of sex/gender and the disputes. I present Quijano’s model that I will complicate. but it is not explicitly articulated. in turn. Global. and in all its detailed and lived concreteness will enable us to see what was imposed on us. 2000b. Quijano also assumes patriarchal and . My intent is to provide a way of understanding.6 In this initial essay. both in large strokes. 2001–2002). 1). it is necessary to understand his model of global. We need to place ourselves in a position to call each other to reject this gender system as we perform a transformation of communal relations. that of the coloniality of power (2000a. So.

“america” and “europe” are among the new geocultural identities. Hegemonically. The invention of race is a pivotal turn as it replaces the relations of superiority and inferiority established through domination. heterosexualism. They need not be. eurocentered. “european. 1). capitalist understanding of what gender is about.190 Hypatia heterosexual understandings of the disputes over control of sex. 342). Biological dimorphism. coloniality permeates all aspects of social existence and gives rise to new social and geocultural identities (Quijano 2000b. Quijano seems unaware of his accepting this hegemonic meaning of gender. and intersubjectivity as developing in processes of long duration. Quijano accepts the global. It makes conceptual room for the centrality of the classification of the world’s population in terms of races in the understanding of global capitalism. the mythical presentation of these elements as metaphysically prior is an important aspect of the cognitive model of eurocentered. eurocentered. It also makes conceptual room for understanding historical disputes over control of labor. . its resources.” “african” are among the “racial” identities. these are written large over the meaning of gender.” “Indian. in biological terms. The coloniality of power introduces the basic and universal social classification of the population of the planet in terms of the idea of ‘race’ (Quijano 2001–2002. as a matter of history. This move makes conceptual room for the coloniality of power. while preserving his understanding of the coloniality of power. the patriarchal and heterosexual organizations of relations—is crucial to an understanding of the differential gender arrangements along “racial” lines. and patriarchy are all characteristic of what I call the light side of the colonial/modern organization of gender. It reconceives humanity and human relations fictionally. which is at the center of what I am calling the modern/colonial gender system. capitalist model of power do not stand separately from each other and none is prior to the processes that constitute the patterns. including social sexual arrangements. The heterosexual and patriarchal character of the arrangements can themselves be appreciated as oppressive by unveiling the presuppositions of the framework. Indeed. 367). In making these claims I aim to expand and complicate Quijano’s approach. But gender arrangements need not be either heterosexual or patriarchal. global capitalism. understanding these features of the organization of gender in the modern/colonial gender system—the biological dimorphism. The elements that constitute the global. rather than understanding each of the elements as predating the relations of power. In constituting this social classification. Gender does not need to organize social arrangements. These features of the framework serve to veil the ways in which nonwhite colonized women have been subjected and disempowered. collective authority. It is important that what Quijano provides is a historical theory of social classification to replace what he terms the “eurocentric theories of social classes” (2000b. that is. and products. sex.

though this is the hegemonic model. collective authority. Here. 349). and labor are articulated around it. the element that serves as an axis becomes constitutive of and constituted by all the forms that relations of power take with respect to control over that particular domain of human existence. authority. eurocentered capitalism fall under the capital/wage relation model. Since then. though coloniality is related to colonialism. subjectivity/intersubjectivity and the production of knowledge from within these intersubjective relations. It is important in beginning to see the reach of the coloniality of power that wage labor has been reserved almost exclusively for white europeans. This way of knowing is eurocentered. the classification was imposed on the population of the planet. slavery. “eurocentrism naturalizes the experience of people within this model of power” (2000b. subjectivity. since it is one of the axes of the system of power and as such it permeates all control of sexual access. and reciprocity under the hegemony of the capital-wage labor relation” (2000b. it has permeated every area of social existence. capitalist power. as “the fusing of the experiences of colonialism and coloniality with the necessities of capitalism. 1). Quijano focuses on the production of a way of knowing. all control over sex. It is an encompassing phenomenon. constituting the most effective form of material and intersubjective social domination. Quijano also makes clear that. these are distinct as the latter does not necessarily include racist relations of power. In characterizing modernity. Coloniality’s birth and its prolonged and deep extension throughout the planet is tightly related to colonianism (2000b. wage labor. creating a specific universe of intersubjective relations of domination under a eurocentered hegemony” (2000b. as I understand the logic of “structural axis” in Quijano’s usage. servitude. 381). labor. eurocentered. Finally.María Lugones 191 This classification is “the deepest and most enduring expression of colonial domination” (2001–2002. 343). coloniality does not just refer to racial classification. of those educated under the hegemony of world capitalism. eurocentered capitalism. Thus. In Quijano’s model of global. small independent mercantile production. 343). labeled rational. the structuring of the disputes over control of labor is discontinuous: not all labor relations under global. the other axis of global. alternatively. . With expansion of european colonialism. By Eurocentrism Quijano understands the cognitive perspective not of europeans only. In this sense. The division of labor is thoroughly racialized as well as geographically differentiated. capitalism refers to “the structural articulation of all historically known forms of control of labor or exploitation. but of the eurocentered world. or. Quijano understands modernity. we see the coloniality of labor as a thorough meshing of labor and race. arising from within this subjective universe since the seventeenth century in the main hegemonic centers of this world system of power (Holland and england).

We can see then the structural fit of the elements constituting global. capitalism and as having achieved a very advanced level in the continuous. eurocentered capitalism in Quijano’s model (pattern). Though everyone in capitalist eurocentered modernity is both raced and gendered. but as an anterior stage in the history of the species. Intersectionality reveals what is not seen when categories such as gender and race are conceptualized as separate from each other. externalization (or objectification) of what is knowable with respect to the knower so as to control the relations among people and nature and among them with respect to it. Modernity and coloniality afford a complex understanding of the organization of labor.192 Hypatia The cognitive needs of capitalism and the naturalizing of the identities and relations of coloniality and of the geocultural distribution of world capitalist power have guided the production of this way of knowing. Kimberlé Crenshaw and other women of color feminists have argued that the categories have been understood as homogenous and as picking out the dominant in the group as the norm. That is the meaning of the qualification “primitive” (Quijano 2000b. men picks out white bourgeois men. Quijano argues that the structure is not a closed totality (2000b. global. europe came to be mythically conceived as preexisting colonial. black picks out . nor as inferior in terms of wealth or political power. 343). The move to intersect the categories has been motivated by the difficulties in making visible those who are dominated and victimized in terms of both categories. 355). primitive and civilized. This way of knowing was imposed on the whole of the capitalist world as the only valid rationality and as emblematic of modernity. 343–44). as such. unidirectional. They enable us to see the fit between the thorough racialization of the division of labor and the production of knowledge. a conception of humanity was consolidated according to which the world’s population was differentiated in two groups: superior and inferior. not everyone is dominated or victimized in terms of their race or gender. unidirectional path. quantification. I think the logic of “structural axes” does more and less than intersectionality. rational and irrational. The pattern allows for heterogeneity and discontinuity. linear. The cognitive needs of capitalism include “measurement. Thus. in this unidirectional path. Primitive referred to a prior time in the history of the species. from within this mythical starting point. We are now in a position to approach the question of the intersectionality of race and gender9 in Quijano’s terms. traditional and modern. continuous path of the species. europe was mythologically understood to predate this pattern of power as a world capitalist center that colonized the rest of the world and. thus women picks out white bourgeois women. in particular the property in means of production” (Quijano 2000b. in terms of evolutionary time. other human inhabitants of the planet came to be mythically conceived not as dominated through conquest. the most advanced moment in the linear.

Given the construction of the categories. seems unproblematically biological to Quijano. the shape of one’s eyes and hair do not have any relation to the biological structure” (2000b.”12 that is. He characterizes the “coloniality of gender relations. which does not include differential biological attributes. the intersection misconstrues women of color. the ordering of gender relations around the axis of the coloniality of power. its resources. That is. In Quijano’s model (pattern) gender seems to be contained within the organization of that “basic area of existence” that Quijano calls “sex. the counterpart of the free—that is. and products” (2000b. I think he has the logic of it right. Quijano seems to me to imply that gender difference is constituted in the disputes over control of sex. So. In the whole of the colonial world. “the color of one’s skin. as follows: 1. and so on. on the other hand. 373). . its resources. 2. It becomes logically clear then that the logic of categorial separation distorts what exists at the intersection. such as violence against women of color. In that sense. instead. once intersectionality shows us what is missing. In europe.10 It is only when we perceive gender and race as intermeshed or fused that we actually see women of color. patriarchal distribution of power. But the axis of coloniality is not sufficient to pick out all aspects of gender. the norms and formalideal patterns of sexual behavior of the genders and consequently the patterns of familial organization of “europeans” were directly founded on the “racial” classification: the sexual freedom of males and the fidelity of women were. on the one hand. and other “colors” in the rest of the subjected world.María Lugones 193 black heterosexual men. we have ahead of us the task of reconceptualizing the logic of the intersection so as to avoid separability. Though I have not found a characterization of gender in what I have read of his work. there is no gender/race separability in Quijano’s model. there is an account of gender within the framework that is not itself placed under scrutiny and that is too narrow and overly biologized as it presupposes sexual dimorphism. Sex. not paid as in prostitution—access of white men to “black” women and “indians” in america. Differences are shaped through the manner in which this control is organized. What aspects of gender are shown depends on how gender is actually conceptualized in the model. 378). heterosexuality. The logic of structural axes shows gender as constituted by and constituting the coloniality of power. it was the prostitution of women that was the counterpart of the bourgeois family pattern. “black” women in africa. Quijano understands sex as biological attributes11 that become elaborated as social categories. and so on. He contrasts the biological quality of sex with phenotype. in the whole of the eurocentered world. and products.

“they have some biological indicators that are traditionally associated with males and some biological indicators that are traditionally associated with females.” which could be held and distributed as property not just as merchandise but as “animals. From the late nineteenth century until World War I. Familial unity and integration.S. emphases added). The hypocrisy characteristically underlying the norms and formal-ideal values of the bourgeois family are not. Greenberg argues that throughout u. and products and he seems to make a presupposition as to who controls access and who become constituted as resources. The presence or absence of ovaries was the ultimate criterion of sex (Greenberg 2002. That is. But . society presumes an unambiguous binary sex paradigm in which all individuals can be classified neatly as male or female (2002. Quijano appears to take for granted that the dispute over control of sex is a dispute among men. The assignations reveal that what is understood to be biological sex is socially constructed. The differences are thought of in terms of how society reads reproductive biology.194 Hypatia 3. in spite of the fact that 1 to 4 percent of the world’s population is intersexed. Despite anthropological and medical studies to the contrary.” This was particularly the case among “black” slaves.) as we see in this complex and important quote. alien to the coloniality of power. reproductive function was considered a woman’s essential characteristic. 113). and sex will have a profound impact on these individuals” (112. 4. about men’s control of resources which are thought to be female. its resources. 378. Men do not seem understood as the resources in sexual encounters. The manner in which the law defines the terms male. Quijano’s framework restricts gender to the organization of sex. (Quijano 2000b. they do not fit neatly into unambiguous sex categories. since then. since this form of domination over them was more explicit. female. were the counterpart of the continued disintegration of the parent-children units in the “nonwhite” “races. immediate. Women are not thought to be disputing for control over sexual access. history the law has failed to recognize intersexuals. Intersexuality In “Definitional Dilemmas. 112).” Julie Greenberg tells us that legal institutions have the power to assign individuals to a particular racial or sexual category:13 “Sex is still presumed to be binary and easily determinable by an analysis of biological factors. my translation. and prolonged. imposed as the axes of the model of the bourgeois family in the eurocentered world.

(Greenberg 2002. Sexual fears of colonizers led them to imagine the indigenous people of the americas as hermaphrodites or intersexed. The cosmetic and substantive corrections to biology make very clear that “gender” is antecedent to the “biological” traits and gives them meaning. but in a manner that reveals biology is thoroughly interpreted and itself surgically constructed. internal morphology. Though the law permits self-identification of one’s sex in certain documents. however. with large penises and breasts with flowing milk. gonads. The law does not recognize intersexual status. XY infants with “inadequate” penises must be turned into girls because society believes the essence of manhood is the ability to penetrate a vagina and urinate while standing. hormonal patterns. are assigned the female sex because society and many in the medical community believe that the essence of womanhood is the ability to bear children rather than the ability to engage in satisfactory sexual intercourse. at present. This is important because sexual dimorphism has been an important characteristic of what I call “the light side” of the colonial/ modern gender system. the right to marry (Greenberg 2002. intersexed individuals were recognized in many tribal societies prior to colonization without assimilation to the sexual binary. 115). Those in the “dark side” were not necessarily understood dimorphically. 114) Intersexed individuals are frequently surgically and hormonally turned into males or females. If the latter did only recognize sexual dimorphism for white bourgeois males and females. “for the most part. Greenberg reports the complexities and variety of decisions on sexual assignation in each case. 119). It is important to consider the changes that colonization brought to understand the scope of the organization of sex and gender under colonialism and in eurocentered global capitalism. and self-identified sex (Greenberg 2002. the ability to state a claim for employment discrimination based upon sex. 112). it certainly does not follow that the sexual division is based on biology.” not all . external morphology. These factors are taken into account in legal cases involving the right to change the sex designation on official documents. legal institutions continue to base sex assignment on the traditional assumptions that sex is binary and can be easily determined by analyzing biological factors” (Greenberg 2002. assigned sex. Greenberg’s work enables me to point out an important assumption in the model that Quijano offers us.14 But as Paula Gunn allen (1986/1992) and others have made clear.María Lugones 195 there are a large number of factors that can enter into “establishing someone’s ‘official’ sex”: chromosomes. phenotype. The naturalizing of sexual differences is another product of the modern use of science that Quijano points out in the case of “race. chromosomes and genitalia enter into the assignment. XX infants with “adequate” penises.

nongendered egalitarianism In The Invention of Women. Gunn’s work has enabled us to see that the scope of the gender differentials was much more encompassing and it did not rest on biology. nongendered and Gynecratic egalitarianism as global. as with other assumptions. one that is facilitated by the West’s global material dominance” (32). not by contrasting patriarchy and matriarchy. She tells us that “researchers always find gender when they look for it” (31). So. eurocentered capitalism was constituted through colonization. Thus Quijano’s understanding of the scope of gendering in global. capitalist domination/exploitation. allen argued that many native american tribes were matriarchal.196 Hypatia different traditions correct and normalize intersexed people. but by arguing that “gender was not an organizing principle in Yoruba society prior to colonization by the West” (31). Her argument shows us that the scope of the gender system colonialism imposed encompasses the subordination of females in every aspect of life. recognized “third” gendering and homosexuality positively. has been translated into english to fit the Western pattern of body-reasoning” (30). “The usual gloss of the Yoruba categories obinrin and okunrin as ‘female/woman’ and ‘male/man. allen also showed us a gynecentric construction of knowledge and approach to understanding “reality” that counters the knowledge production of modernity. is a mistranslation. eurocentered. she tells us that gender has “become important in Yoruba studies not as an artifact of Yoruba life but because Yoruba life. oyéronké oyewùmí raises questions about the validity of patriarchy as a valid transcultural category (1997. another aspect of the hidden scope of “gender” in Quijano’s account of the processes constituting the coloniality of gender.’ respectively. no gender system was in place. and understood gender in egalitarian terms rather than in the terms of subordination that eurocentered capitalism imposed on them. These categories are neither binarily opposed nor hierarchical” (32–33). oyéronké oyewùmí (1997) has shown us that the oppressive gender system that was imposed on Yoruba society did a lot more than transform the organization of reproduction. past and present. it is important to ask how sexual dimorphism served and continues to serve global. She does so. The prefixes obin and okun specify a variety of . Thus she has pointed us in the direction of recognizing the gendered construction of knowledge in modernity. Indeed. recognized more than two genders. The assumption that Yoruba society included gender as an organizing principle is another case “of Western dominance in the documentation and interpretation of the world. eurocentered capitalism is much too narrow. 20). gender differentials were introduced where there were none.

The inferiorization of anafemales extended very widely—from exclusion from leadership roles to loss of control over property and other important economic domains. It is important to note that she does not understand these categories as binarily opposed. such as the Yorùbá. in which power was not gender-determined. . the norm. The transformation of state power to male-gender power was accomplished at one level by the exclusion of women from state structures. So. The imposition of the european state system. oyewùmí translates the prefixes as referring to the anatomic male and the anatomic female. those who do not have power. (123–25) oyewùmí recognizes two crucial processes in colonization. The emergence of women as an identifiable category. defined by their anatomy and subordinated to men in all situations. when we think of the indifference of nonwhite men to the violences exercised against nonwhite women. with its attendant legal and bureaucratic machinery. oyewùmí notes that the introduction of the Western gender system was accepted by Yoruba males. colonization was a twofold process of racial inferiorization and gender subordination. This was in sharp contrast to Yorùbá state organization. The very process by which females were categorized and reduced to “women” made them ineligible for leadership roles.María Lugones 197 anatomy. ‘Women’ (the gender term) is not defined through biology. . The creation of “women” as a category was one of the very first accomplishments of the colonial state. though it is assigned to anafemales. Women are those who do not have a penis. that it was unthinkable for the colonial government to recognize female leaders among the peoples they colonized. . we can begin to have some sense of the collaboration between anamales and Western colonials against anafemales. resulted. in part. from the imposition of a patriarchal colonial state. oyewùmí understands gender as introduced by the West as a tool of domination that designates two binarily opposed and hierarchical social categories. and the inferiorization of anafemales. oyewùmí makes clear that both men and women resisted cultural changes at different levels. . is the most enduring legacy of european colonial rule in africa. one tradition that was exported to africa during this period was the exclusion of women from the newly created colonial public sphere. . none of this was true of Yoruba anafemales prior to colonization. 34). . For females. Women are defined in relation to men. who thus colluded with the inferiorization of anafemales. Thus. those who cannot participate in the public arena (oyewùmí 1997. . while . . therefore. the imposition of races with the accompanying inferiorization of africans. shortened as anamale and anafemale. . It is not surprising.

For Yorùbá obinrin. Paula Gunn allen emphasizes the centrality of the spiritual in all aspects of Indian life and thus a very different intersubjectivity from within which knowledge is produced than that of the coloniality of knowledge in modernity. the colonial. I have gone outside the coloniality of gender in order to examine what it hides. it follows rather than discloses the erasure of colonized women from most areas of social life. 13). She enables us to see the economic. albeit in concatenation with the reality of separate and hierarchical sexes imposed during the colonial period. though I think that the coloniality of gender. political. Thought Woman are some of the names of powerful creators. For the gynecratic tribes.198 Hypatia in the West the challenge of feminism is how to proceed from the gender-saturated category of “women” to the fullness of an unsexed humanity. So. Her understanding of gender. or disallows from consideration. Serpent Woman. shows us very important aspects of the intersection of race and gender. old Spider Woman. about the very scope of the gender system of eurocentered global capitalism. . Many american Indian tribes “thought that the primary potency in the universe was female. 26). Quijano assumes much of the terms of the modern/colonial gender system’s hegemonic light side in defining the scope of gender. oyewùmí’s rejection of the gender lens in characterizing the inferiorization of anafemales in modern colonization makes clear the extent and scope of the inferiorization. then. Woman is at the center and “no thing is sacred without her blessing. Gynecratic egalitarianism To assign to this great being the position of “fertility goddess” is exceedingly demeaning: it trivializes the tribes and it trivializes the power of woman. and that understanding authorizes all tribal activities” (allen 1986/1992. the challenge is obviously different because at certain levels in the society and in some spheres. her thinking” (allen 1986/1992. that the scope of the coloniality of gender is much too narrow. and cognitive inferiorization as well as the inferiorization of anafemales regarding reproductive control. as Quijano pointedly describes it. It exists. eurocentered capitalist construction is much more encompassing than Quijano’s. (156) We can see. the notion of an “unsexed humanity” is neither a dream to aspire to nor a memory to be realized. Corn Woman. It accommodates rather than disrupt the narrowing of gender domination. —Paula Gunn allen as she characterizes many native american tribes as gynecratic.

” Thus “recasting archaic tribal versions of tribal history. and disruption of all social. and the economic distribution that often followed the system of reciprocity.María Lugones 199 replacing this gynecratic spiritual plurality with one supreme male being as Christianity did. 4. Most individuals fit into tribal gender roles “on the basis of proclivity. was crucial in subduing the tribes. The people “are pushed off their lands. will be incorporated into the spiritual and popular traditions of the tribes” (42). 18). maintaining harmony and administering domestic affairs. by the nuclear family. for allen. 2. The primacy of female as creator is displaced and replaced by male-gendered creators (generally generic) (1986/1992. the inferiorization of Indian females is thoroughly tied to the domination and transformation of tribal life. now dependent on white institutions for their survival. philosophy. The clan structure “must be replaced in fact if not in theory. tribal systems can ill afford gynocracy when patriarchy—that is. and economic structures” (42). The red. or tribe. survival—requires male dominance” (42). The two sides of the complementary social structure included an internal female chief and an external male chief. 41). as they were among the Iroquois and the Cherokee (41). and subsistence depend. chief presided over mediations between the tribe and outsiders (allen 1986/1992. institutions and the oral tradition increases the likelihood that the patriarchal revisionist versions of tribal life. . spiritual. By this ploy. The internal chief presided over the band. the women clan heads are replaced by elected male officials and the psychic net that is formed and maintained by the nature of nonauthoritarian gynecentricity grounded in respect for diversity of gods and people is thoroughly rent” (42). skewed or simply made up by patriarchal non-Indians and patriarchalized Indians. The program of degynocratization requires impressive “image and information control. the understanding of gender. Gender was not understood primarily in biological terms. customs. The destruction of the gynocracies is crucial to the “decimation of populations through starvation. and forced to curtail or end altogether pursuits on which their ritual system. allen proposes that transforming Indian tribes from egalitarian and gynecratic to hierarchical and patriarchal “requires meeting four objectives: 1. village. Tribal governing institutions and the philosophies that are their foundation are destroyed. deprived of their economic livelihood. 3. among the features of the Indian society targeted for destruction were the two-sided complementary social structure. male. Thus. disease.

to speak to the men’s council. The white colonizer constructed a powerful inside force as colonized men were co-opted into patriarchal roles. Sac and Fox. The Yuma had a tradition of gender designation based on dreams. aztec. Creek. allen details the transformations of the Iroquois and Cherokee gynecracies and the role of Indian men in the passage to patriarchy. they had the right to inclusion in public policy decisions. Paiute. The Iroquois shifted from a Mother-centered. to decide the fate of captives. Tlingit. Yuki. Illinois. and John ross. . and in conjunction with Christian sympathizers to the Cherokee cause. Pueblo. Zuñi. She also tells us that among the eighty-eight tribes that recognized homosexuality. acoma. Shasta. The Women’s Council was politically and spiritually powerful (36–37). Pawnee. many of the tribes were gynecratic. Like oyewùmí. aleut. The feat was accomplished with the collaboration of Handsome Lake and his followers. Maricopa. Quinault. allen is interested in the collaboration between some Indian men and whites in undermining the power of women. It is important for us to think about these collaborations as we think of the question of indifference to the struggles of women in racialized communities against multiple forms of violence against them and the communities. Ponca. the new Cherokee constitution relegated women to the position of chattel. Shoshoni. navajo. drafted a constitution that disenfranchised women and blacks. The British took Cherokee men to england and gave them an education in the ways of the english. Sioux. among them the Susquehanna. osage. Pima. Yuma.200 Hypatia inclination. whose favor they were attempting to curry. naskapi. Montagnais. the right to bear arms. to a patriarchal society when the Iroquois became a subject people. Choctaw. and temperament. Kansas. and others. Crow. In an effort to stave off removal. as the Cherokee were removed and patriarchal arrangements were introduced. 37) Cherokee women had had the power to wage war. Cherokee. the right to choose whom and whether to marry. Maya. those who recognized homosexuals in positive terms included the apache. These men participated during the time of the removal act. navajo. Coastal algonkians. Lamath. narragansett. the Cherokee in the early 1800s under the leadership of men such as elias Boudinot. Mother-right people organized politically under the authority of the Matrons. Major ridge. Mohave. (allen 1986/1992. Chilula. Modeled after the Constitution of the united States. Twenty of these tribes included specific references to lesbianism. a female who dreamed of weapons became a male for all practical purposes” (196). Seminole. according to allen. and Kamia. Iroquois. Cherokee women lost all these powers and rights. Cheyenne. Iowa. Hurons. Winnebago.

violent. I think it is important to see. allen also showed us that the heterosexuality characteristic of the modern/colonial construction of gender relations is produced. In this sense. eurocentered capitalism is heterosexualist. He also comments that sodomy. and demeaning. Those changes were introduced through slow. as is the very conception of reality at every level. but Spanish law condemned the active not the passive partner in sodomy to criminal punishment. including ritual sodomy. Pete Sigal tells us that the Spanish saw sodomy as sinful. Spanish soldiers were seen as the active partners to the passive Moors (102–4).María Lugones 201 Michael Horswell (2003) comments usefully on the use of the term third gender. sodomy was racialized by connecting the practice to the Moors and the passive partner was condemned and seen as equal to a Moor. mythically constructed. The nahuas and Mayas also reserved a role for ritualized sodomy (Sigal 2003. 104).” Horswell’s and Sigal’s work complements allen’s. that this heterosexuality has been consistently perverse. particularly in understanding the presence of sodomy and male homosexuality in colonial and precolonial america. The gender system introduced was one thoroughly informed through the coloniality of power. The “third” is emblematic of other possible combinations than the dimorphic. He tells that third gender does not mean that there are three genders. Interestingly. The term berdache is sometimes used for “third gender. and heterogeneous processes that violently inferiorized colonized women. 27). was recorded in andean societies and many other native societies in the americas (27). but she has also revealed that the production of knowledge is gendered. The Colonial/Modern Gender System understanding the place of gender in precolonial societies is pivotal to understanding the nature and scope of changes in the social structure that the processes constituting colonial/modern eurocentered capitalism imposed. turning people into animals and turning white women into reproducers of “the (white) race” and “the (middle or upper) class. It is rather a way of breaking with sex and gender bipolarities. In Spanish popular culture. But heterosexuality is not just biologized in a fictional way. allen has not only enabled us to see how narrow Quijano’s conception of gender is in terms of the organization of the economy and of collective authority.” Horswell tells us that male berdache have been documented in nearly 150 north american societies and female berdache in half as many groups (2003. as we understand the depth and force of violence in the production of both the light and the dark sides of the colonial/modern gender system. large sense. it is compulsory and permeates the whole of the coloniality of gender in the renewed. allen supported the questioning of biology in the construction of gender differences and introduces the important idea of gender roles being chosen and dreamt. global. . discontinuous.

to control over sex and its resources and products is a matter of ideology. The sense is that the reduction of gender to the private. To think the scope of the gender system of global. beginning from that characterization. of the cognitive production of modernity that has understood race as gendered and gender as raced in particularly differential ways for europeans/whites and colonized/nonwhite peoples. Given the coloniality of power. infants. the connections among gender. modern. The logic of the relation between them is of mutual constitution. it is important to understand the extent to which the imposition of this gender system was as constitutive of the coloniality of power as the coloniality of power was constitutive of it. its resources. and sexually passive. Females excluded from that description were not just their subordinates. collective decision making and authority. and characteristics of the colonial/modern gender system. subjectivity/intersubjectivity. and products constitutes gender domination. white bourgeois feminists theorized white womanhood as if all women were white. Thus. depth. since the classification of the population in terms of race is a necessary condition of its possibility. To understand this narrowing and to understand the intermeshing of racialization and gendering. eurocentered capitalism it is necessary to understand the extent to which the very process of narrowing of the concept of gender to the control of sex. and heterosexuality as racialized were not made explicit. In the development of twentieth-century feminism. This will enable us to see whether control over labor. race is no more mythical and fictional than gender—both are powerful fictions. Considering critically both biological dimorphism and the position that gender socially constructs biological sex helps us understand the scope. They were understood as animals in the deep sense . collective authority. They were also understood to be animals in a sense that went further than the identification of white women with nature. egalitarian relations. Indeed. I think we can also say that having a dark and a light side is characteristic of the co-construction of the coloniality of power and the colonial/modern gender system. class. and small animals. But it did not bring to consciousness that those characteristics only constructed white bourgeois womanhood. It is part of their history that only white bourgeois women have consistently counted as women so described in the West. secluded in the private. ritual thinking. weak in both body and mind. sex—Quijano’s “areas of existence”—was itself gendered.15 But it should be clear by now that the colonial. That feminism centered its struggle and its ways of knowing and theorizing against a characterization of women as fragile.202 Hypatia understanding the place of gender in precolonial societies is also essential to understanding the extent and importance of the gender system in disintegrating communal relations. we must consider whether the social arrangements prior to colonization regarding the sexes gave differential meaning to them across all areas of existence. and economies. gender system cannot exist without the coloniality of power.

and desires imposed on white bourgeois women’s subordination. South were not considered fragile or weak. including oral history. eurocentered capitalism. Thus. white feminism wrote white women large. colonized women. That is. at the intersection of race. without any of the privileges accompanying that status for white bourgeois women. they were all in a simple uniform dress of a bluish check stuff. They presumed a sisterhood. Colonized females got the inferior status of gendering as women. oyewùmí and allen have also explained that the egalitarian understanding of the relation between anafemales.María Lugones 203 of “without gender. of the relation of white to nonwhite women. stereotypes. traits. slave women performing backbreaking work in the u. But the work of oyewùmí and allen has made clear that there was no extension of the status of white women to colonized women even when they were turned into similes of bourgeois white women.17 Women racialized as inferior were turned from animals into various modified versions of “women” as it fit the processes of global. although the histories oyewùmí and allen have presented should make clear to white bourgeois women that their status is much inferior to that of native american or Yoruba women before colonization. They understood women as inhabiting white bodies but did not bring that racial qualification to articulation or clear awareness. and heterosexual domination of white women. they did not understand themselves in intersectional terms. erasing any history. For example. and “third gender” people has left neither the imagination nor the practices of native americans and Yoruba. and other forceful marks of subjection or domination. Because they did not perceive these deep differences they saw no need to create coalitions. who were characterized along a gamut of sexual aggression and perversion. But these are matters of resistance to domination.18 White feminist struggle became one against the positions.”16 sexually marked as female. First came. a bond given with the subjection of gender. even though historically and contemporarily white bourgeois women knew perfectly well how to orient themselves in an organization of life that pitted them for very different treatment than nonwhite or working-class women. and as strong enough to do any sort of labor. as well as with the imposition of the heterosexual understanding of gender relations among the colonized—when and as it suited global. including female slaves. They countenanced no one else’s gender oppression. eurocentered capitalism. the skirts reaching .S. forty of the largest and strongest women I ever saw together. heterosexual rape of Indian or african slave women coexisted with concubinage. anamales. but without the characteristics of femininity. the characterization of white european women as fragile and sexually passive opposed them to nonwhite. roles. Historically. led by an old driver carrying a whip. gender.

“sexually aggressive wet nurses. If Black slave women could be portrayed as having excessive sexual appetites. mostly men. asia—were figured in european lore as libidinously eroticized. on a brisk pony. like chasseurs on the march. they carried themselves loftily. but a few of them women.204 Hypatia little below the knee. two of whom rode astride on the plow mules. and by forcing Black women to work in the field. men sported gigantic penises and women consorted with apes. Behind came the cavalry. which is given to them at noon to swallow their allowance of cold bacon. brought up the rear. as legend had it. thus providing a powerful rationale for the widespread sexual assaults by White men typically reported by Black slave women. a lean and vigilant white overseer. . the americas. where. they often times labor till the middle of the night. feminized men’s breasts . anne McClintock evokes the “long tradition of male travel as an erotics of ravishment. . and emotionally nurture their White owners. (Collins 2000. . By suppressing the nurturing that african-american women might give their own children which would strengthen Black family networks. with the exception of ten or fifteen minutes. thirty strong. (Takaki 1993.” Jezebel’s function was to relegate all Black women to the category of sexually aggressive women. then increased fertility should be the expected outcome. In Imperial Leather. and when the moon is full. powerful swing. the uncertain continents—africa. The hands are required to be in the cotton field as soon as it is light in the morning. as she tells us of Columbus’s depiction of the earth as a woman’s breast. Jezebel served yet another function. each having a hoe over the shoulder. 111) Patricia Hill Collins has provided a clear sense of the dominant understanding of black women as sexually aggressive and the genesis of that stereotype in slavery: The image of Jezebel originated under slavery when Black women were portrayed as being. “wet nurse” White children. their legs and feet were bare.” For centuries. and walking with a free. slave owners effectively tied the controlling images of jezebel and mammy to the economic exploitation inherent in the institution of slavery. to use Jewelle Gomez’ words. 82) But it is not just black slave women who were placed outside the scope of white bourgeois femininity. Travelers’ tales abounded with visions of the monstrous sexuality of far-off lands. and. they are not permitted to be a moment idle until it is too dark to see.

Gender norms in the united States are premised upon the experiences of middle-class men and women of european origin. . . With the development of evolutionary theory “anatomical criteria were sought for determining the relative position of races in the human series” (50) and “the english middle-class male was placed at the pinnacle of evolutionary hierarchy. The cannibals appear to be female and are spit roasting a human leg. 22) McClintock described the colonial scene depicted in a sixteenth-century drawing in which Jan van der Straet “portrays the ‘discovery’ of america as an eroticized encounter between a man and a woman. economic and political power” (47). (1995. These eurocentric-constructed gender norms form a backdrop of expectations for american men and women of color—expectations which racism often precludes meeting. fructify the wilderness and quell the riotous scenes of cannibalism in the background. McClintock tells us. . female miners and working class prostitutes were stationed on the threshold between the white and black races” (56). 135) . . . . (1997. . but rather the aggressor—a threat to white women. Yen Le espiritu tells us that representations of gender and sexuality figure strongly in the articulation of racism. the indigenous woman extends an inviting hand.María Lugones 205 flowed with milk and militarized women lopped theirs off.” roused from her sensual languor by the epic newcomer. (25–26) In the nineteenth century. and women of color are seen as over sexualized and thus undeserving of the social and sexual protection accorded to white middle-class women. women figured as the epitome of sexual aberration and excess. the godlike arrival. their exclusion from whitebased cultural notions of the masculine and the feminine has taken seemingly contrasting forms: asian men have been cast as both hypermasculine (the “Yellow Peril”) and effeminate (the “model minority”). as given to a lascivious venery so promiscuous as to border on the bestial. Domestic workers. even more than the men. Vespucci. and asian women have been rendered both superfeminine (the “China Doll”) and castrating (the “Dragon Lady”). is destined to inseminate her with his male seeds of civilization. For asian american men and women. Within this porno tropic tradition. White english middle class women followed. . “sexual purity emerged as a controlling metaphor for racial. along the same lines. Folklore saw them. . insinuating sex and submission. men of color are viewed not as the protector. In general.

and over collective authority. thus they think not only of control over sex. oyewùmí and allen. to forced sex with white colonizers. The dark side of the gender system was and is thoroughly violent. its resources and products. have helped us realize the full extent of the reach of the colonial/modern gender system into the construction of collective authority. and the coloniality of power. Sexual purity and passivity are crucial characteristics of the white bourgeois females who reproduce the class and the colonial and racial standing of bourgeois. all aspects of the relation between capital and labor.206 Hypatia This gender system congealed as europe advanced the colonial project(s). they understand gender in a wider sense than Quijano. We have begun to see the deep reductions of anamales. they see an articulation between labor. To some extent. and economics. by the violence of the conquest. as heterosexuality permeates racialized patriarchal control over production. That is. Heterosexuality is both compulsory and perverse among white bourgeois men and women since the arrangement does significant violence to the powers and rights of white bourgeois women and serves to reproduce control over production and white bourgeois women are inducted into this reduction through bounded sexual access. forced to work till death” (2000a. my translation). The light side constructs gender and gender relations hegemonically. Quijano tells us that “the vast Indian genocide of the first decades of colonization was not caused. decision making. rather is was due to the fact that the Indians were used as throwaway labor. white men. in the main. for example. The gender system has a light and a dark side. Important work has been and has yet to be done in detailing the dark and light sides of what I am calling the modern colonial gender system. I want to mark the connection between the work that I am citing here as I introduce the modern colonial gender system’s dark side and Quijano’s coloniality of power. and the construction of knowledge. ordering only the lives of white bourgeois men and women and constituting the modern/ colonial meaning of men and women. including knowledge production. anafemales. sex. their reduction to animality. most areas of human existence. from the production of knowledge.19 In . Weakness of mind and body are important in the reduction and seclusion of white bourgeois women from most domains of life. and “third gender” people from their ubiquitous participation in rituals. but also of labor as both racialized and gendered. from most control over the means of production. It took shape during the Spanish and Portuguese colonial adventures and became full blown in late modernity. The gender system is heterosexualist. unlike white feminists who have not focused on colonialism. these theorists very much see the differential construction of gender along racial lines. to such deep labor exploitation that often people died working. nor by the diseases that the conquerors carried. But equally important is the banning of white bourgeois women from the sphere of collective authority.

in its detailed space/time concreteness toward a transformation of communal relations. and Lugones 2003. Crenshaw 1995. 6. There is a very large and significant literature on this question of intersectional. oyewùmí 1997. 10. 8. eurocentered capitalism. Quijano prefers pattern to model as a translation for patrón. Popular education can be a method of collective critical exploration of this gender system both in the large stroke. McClintock 1995. so as to come to an inevitable recognition of it in our maps of reality. Barkley Brown 1991. 2001–2002. allen 1986. Because this use of pattern is often awkward. We need to understand the organization of the social so as to make visible our collaboration with systematic racialized gender violence. I do not mean to disagree with Quijano about the fictive quality of race. I want to add amos and Parmar 1984. to uncover collaboration. anzaldúa 1987. 11. When terms “european. The interpretation I offer is gathered from 1991. Lorde 1984.) for an unpacking of this logic. I use model. anibal Quijano’s has written extensively and influentially on this topic. they signify a racial classification. Collins 2000. research and popular education wherein we may begin to see in its details the long sense of the processes of the colonial/gender system enmeshed in the coloniality of power into the present. I certainly do not mean categorical. I mean to begin a conversation and a project of collaborative. I use the u. rather I want to begin to emphasize the fictive quality of gender. and most importantly. 2. 3.” “Indian. Here I refer only to a few pieces: Spelman 1988. I have not seen these attributes summarized by Quijano.d. 4. In dropping the quotation marks around race here. I use categorial to mark arrangements in accordance with categories. See my Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes (2003) and “radical Multiculturalism and Women of Color Feminisms” (n. Those women were and continue to be the target of systematic and extensive state and interpersonal violence under global. including the biological “nature” of sex and heterosexuality. .–originated women of color throughout this piece as a coalitional term against multiple oppressions. 7. 5. Quijano understands race to be a fiction. He always places quotation marks around the term to signify this fictional quality. To the work mentioned already. notes 1.S. His reason is that model suggests something to follow or copy. and alexander and Mohanty 1997. and to call each other to reject it in its various guises as we recommit to communal integrity in a liberatory direction.María Lugones 207 introducing this arrangement in very large strokes.” are in quotation marks. participatory. So. 2000b. 9. espiritu 1997. It is a problematic term and not necessarily one of self-identification for many of the women who had the modern/colonial gender system imposed on them. I do not know whether he is thinking of chromosomal combinations or of genitalia and breasts. 2000a.

The deep distinction between white working-class and nonwhite women can be glimpsed from the very different places they occupied in the evolutionary series referred to by McClintock (1995. Gloria. and the theoretico-practical work. 19. democratic futures. 17. More than one Latin american thinker who decries eurocentrism. colonial legacies. Polyrhythms and Improvisations. The sacred hoop: Recovering the feminine in American Indian traditions. the practical. eds. In History Workshop 31. any gender distinctions. relates women to the sexual and the reproductive. and not having. But I think something that may well be new here is my approach to the logic of intersectionality and my understanding of the mutuality of construction of the coloniality of power and the colonial/modern gender system. Feminist genealogies. Valerie. Borderlands/la Frontera: The new mestiza. See McClintock 1995. 1986/1992. I want to mark that Quijano calls this section of his “Colonialidad del Poder y Clasificación Social” (2000b). and Pratibha Parmar. anzaldúa. but it is only the logic mutuality of construction that yields the inseparability of race and gender. I am working on the inclusion of this crucial complexity into the framework. washerwomen. Kum-Kum Bhavnani.’ ed. 1997. 18. I think they are both necessary. 1987. oxford: oxford university Press. The relevance of contemporary legal disputes over the assignation of gender to intersexed individuals should be clear since Quijano’s model includes the contemporary period. Jacqui. new York: routledge. M. miners. . 15. That is quite fine with me. Boston: Beacon Press.208 Hypatia 12. 16. 13. and Chandra Mohanty. elsa Barkley. See McClintock 1995. one that shows throughout the theoretical. That is. even conceptually. It is important to note that reducing women to nature or the natural is to collude with this racist reduction of colonized women. prostitutes as not necessarily caught through the lens of the sexual or gender binary and as racialized ambiguously. In Feminism and ‘race. allen. 1991. 4). Challenging imperial feminism. but not as white. so long as it is accompanied by a theoretico-practical recognition of this mutual constitution. Spelman’s interpretation (1988) of aristotle’s distinction between free men and women in the Greek polis and slave males and slave females suggested this claim to me. having gender is not a characteristic of being human for all people. Brown. I am sure that those who read this piece will recognize much of what I am saying and some may think that it has already been said. San Francisco: aunt Lute. I am clear now that there is an ambiguous in-between zone between the light and the dark side that conceives/imagines/constructs white women servants. 1984. Paula Gunn. amos. 14. references alexander. not the coloniality of sex but of gender. It is important to distinguish between being thought of as without gender because an animal.

n. and violence against women of color.María Lugones 209 Collins. Horswell. ed. Julie. Patricia Hill. Yen Le. ronald. new York: routledge. Spelman. In Colonialidad del saber. and sexuality in the colonial contest. 2005. 2000. Pete Sigal. and gender in asian america. María. Lugones. Buenos aires. 1997. 1995. oyéronké. ———. Toward an andean theory of ritual same-sex sexuality and thirdgender subjectivity. audre. elizabeth. and asian Women united of California. ed. argentina. ed. 2000b. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Trumansburg. Pete Sigal. Journal of World Systems Research 5. elaine H. The invention of women: Making an African sense of Western gender discourses. 2001–2002. ———. nos. Lilia V. anne. 2003. no. Colonialidad del poder. Boston: Little. Minneapolis: university of Minnesota Press. eurocentrismo y america Latina. new York: routledge. Brown. eurocentrismo y ciencias sicales. Lorde. and Company. Colonialidad. Kimberlé. anibal. Colonialidad del Poder y Clasificacion Social. In Infamous desire: Male homosexuality in colonial Latin America. a. CLaCSo-uneSCo 2000. 2000a. oyewùmí. neil Gotanda. Boston: Beacon. Lanham: rowman & Littlefield. Imperial leather: Race. modernidad/racionalidad. new York: The new Press. ed. Villanueva. ———. 2002. McClintock. Black feminist thought. Madison: university of Wisconsin Press. and homosexual desire in late colonial Yucatan. race. Greenberg. 1995. Pilgrimages/peregrinajes: Theorizing coalitions against multiple oppressions. 1988. Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política. Gendered power. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. 2 (summer/fall). 1993. Boston: Beacon Press. Colonialidad del poder. Peru Indigena 13 (29): 11–29. In Gender nonconformity. In Infamous desire: Male homosexuality in colonial Latin America. and Kendall Thomas. ed. 1984. Inessential woman. Takaki. In Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein.Y. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality. Special issue. In Making more waves. Michael. Quijano. Pete. 1991. race. gender. Definitional dilemmas: Male or female? Black or white? The law’s failure to recognize intersexuals and multiracials. 1997. identity politics.: The Crossing Press. Revista de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León 4. In Critical race theory. Gary Peller. Sigal. globalización y democracia. espiritu. the hybrid self. 2003. Kim. Kimberlé Crenshaw. In Sister outsider. A different mirror. radical multiculturalism and women of color feminisms. . Toni Lester. ———. and sexuality: Charting the connections. 7–8 (September 2001–april 2002): 1–23. class. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Crenshaw.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful